This is an individual assessment reflecting on the learning from the group practical tasks.
In this task, you are required to demonstrate critical reflection skills and reflect on the group practical tasks A,B,C.
Using the template provided, provide one reflective submission based on your experience of groupwork in this subject.
This task will involve reflection on your individual learning needs, working collaboratively and self-appraisal.
Microsoft Word - Group 2 Practical assessment MRS121 20th September 2024 Assessment item 2 – Online group prac cals. Group 2 Wagga Wagga. Lisa Jang, Josie Maclean, Swapna Manikyam, Thomas O’Donnell, Clare Parker, Isabelle Rice, Connor Thompson- Gardener, and Brigid Wilkins. Words: 9647 PART A TASK 1 - KVP Belle – complete 17/9/24 PART A TASK 2 - mAs Lisa – complete 16/9/24 PART A TASK 3 - FRD Swapna – complete 15/9/24 PART B TASK 4 - RT EQUIPMENT DESIGN Tom – complete 17/9/24 PART B TASK 5 - EFFECT OF RADIATION DOSE (maths) Josie - complete 12/9/24 PART C TASK 6 - NM RESOLUTION & CONTRAST Connor – complete 13/9/24 PART C TASK 7 - RADIOACTIVE DECAY Clare – complete 16/9/24 PART C TASK 8 - REVIEW QUESTIONS Brigid – complete 12/9/24 Messenger Group Chat: 23rd August- 30th August - Se ng up everyone's PACS access. Tuesday 3rd September First mee ng. - Discussed strengths and weaknesses of group members. - Discussed any conflic ng events and matched these to roles. - Established group roles. - Set date for work to be send into Brigid: 13th to 26th. Tuesday 10th September - Clare messages group reminding of the peer evalua on and the misconcep on with the word limits bought up in lectures. Wednesday 11th September - Made contact to see how everyone is going as well as double checking everyone is okay to call. - Bought up nuclear medicine side of the assessment as it has only recently been bought up in class. Established leniency for those with the nuclear medicine tasks. 1:30 pm (planned me for group mee ng) - Decided not to call as most people had work commitments. - Each member updated on their progress so far. - When comple ng task email to Brigid and text you have emailed it. o Belle almost complete – mainly focused on refining references. o Lisa sending of what she has wri en so far. o Swapna has started and will finish in a couple of days. o Tom o Joise most of maths completed and will send it off tonight. o Connor just begun his part as nuclear medicine was only just covered in class. o Clare has started needs a few extra days to finish. o Brigid has started and will finish shortly. Monday 16th September Clare messaged group with a friendly reminder that the task is due to be emailed to Brigid tonight. Tuesday 17th September Clare messaged group to see if everyone had emailed their part off and if not where abouts they were in comple ng their part for help with our peer evalua on. Wednesday 18th September Clare messaged group to confirm tomorrow's mee ng which needed to be changed to suit most people. Thursday 19th September As a collec ve we decided that if we were all happy with the final submission and had nothing to be said than we will not meet. With extra communica on around if one person has edited the document for everyone to jump on and make sure they are happy with it before final submission on Friday. Task 1 - MRS121 Group Assessment Part 1A Kilo Voltage Peak Introduc on: Radiographic imaging is a fundamental diagnos c tool in medical prac ce, and its quality is significantly influenced by the technical se ngs used during the imaging process (Imaging and Radiology: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia, 2019). The key variables involved include kilovolt peaks (kVps), sensi vity (S), and la tude (L). These factors determine the image’s exposure, contrast, and ability to capture fine details (Goel., 2010). In this analysis, we will examine the effects of varying kVps, S, and L se ngs across several X-ray Images. The goal is to provide a comprehensive discussion on how each variable influences image quality, pa ent dose, and diagnos c value. kVp and Image Contrast: The kVp se ng directly influences the energy of the X-ray beam and its ability to penetrate ssues (Allen., 2022). In general, higher kVp results in greater penetra on and reduced image contrast. This is evident in higher X-rays such as Figure 6 and Figure 7 where higher kVp, 100kVp and 110 kVp, produces images with be er penetra on through dense structures such as bones but at the cost of the reduced image contrast. Lower kVp, such as 40kVp, as seen in Figure 1, enhances contrast, making differences between so ssue and bone more pronounced. However, lower kVps also risks underpenetra ng dense ssues, making some structures harder to visualise (Mowery & Singh, 2022). The choice of kVp affects not only the quality of the image but also the radia on dose received by the pa ent. Higher kVp se ngs allow for lower mAs (milliampere-seconds) se ngs, reducing the pa ent’s overall radia on dose while s ll achieving adequate image penetra on and quality (Sy et al., 2022). Sensi vity (S) and Image Exposure: Sensi vity (S) values are an indicator of how much radia on the detector received (Seibert & Morin, 2011). For lower extremity S-values should range between 50-250 (Nabasenja, 2023). Lower S-values, such as S=30, S=38 found in Figure 6 and Figure 5 respec vely, reflect over exposure, meaning the image receptor has received more radia on then needed. Overexposure can lead to a reduc on in image contrast and loss of fine detail, especially in less dense areas, as seen in Figure 5 and Figure 6 where S-values are below 100 (Exposure Issues | Radiology | SUNY Upstate Medical University, 2019). These images may appear brighter with less diagnos c value due to the washout effect on the finer details. In contrast, higher S-values, such as Figure 1 where the S-value is S=1828, indicate underexposure, where the image receptor did not receive enough radia on. This results in noisy or grainy images, reducing the overall quality and poten ally obscuring important diagnos c informa on (Bos et al., 2024). La tude (L) and Detail Capture: La tude (L) refers to the range of exposure that the detector can accurately capture without losing detail (Shepard et al., 2009). The op mal L-values for a lower extremity as seen in all the images provided should range between 1.4-2.4 (Nabasenja, 2023). In all the images provided the la tude values range from 1.6-2.3, therefore remaining in the op mal range, such as Figure 1 where L=2.3, indica ng that the system can tolerate a wider range of exposures, capturing more details in both underexposed and overexposed regions. This is beneficial in ensuring that areas of different densi es, such as bone vs. so ssue, are both adequately visualised. Narrower la tudes such as 1.6 as seen in the majority of images throughout this report means there is less room for exposure varia on without compromising the image quality. These images require a more precise exposure se ng to ensure that both so ssue and bone are adequately visualised without losing detail in either extreme. Image Analysis: Figure 1: 40kVp, S=1828, L=2.3 Figure 1, captured at a much lower kVp of 40, offers significantly improved contrast, especially between so ssues and bones. However, the low kVp also means reduced penetra on of dense ssues, poten ally obscuring bone detail. The underexposure, as indicated by the extremely high S-value of 1828, leads to a grainy or noisy image, which can hinder the iden fica on of fine anatomical details. The higher L-value of 2.3 allows for a broader range of exposures to be captured without significant loss of detail. This suggests that, despite the underexposure, the image might s ll retain enough detail for diagnos c purposes, though it would benefit from exposure adjustments to reduce noise. Figure 2: 60kVp, S=145, L=1.7 At 60kVp, Figure 2 strikes a be er balance between contrast and penetra on. The contrast is enhanced compared to the higher kVp figures, making it easier to dis nguish between different ssue types. The moderate kVp also ensures sufficient penetra on for bone visualisa on, while s ll maintaining some level of so ssue detail. The S-value of 145 indicates underexposure, through not as extreme as in Figure 1. This underexposure could result in a noisier image, which might not reduce the diagnos c clarity, par cularly in less dense ssues. The la tude of 1.7 as seen in Figure 2 is slightly broader that in Figure 1, allowing for some variability in exposure without significant loss of detail. Figure 3: 70kVp, S=76, L=1.6: Figure 3, taken at 70kVp, provides a good balance between contrast and penetra on. The kVp is high enough to ensure clear visualisa on of bones, while also preserving some so Figure 1 Figure 2 ssue contrast. The S-value of 76 indicates a slight overexposure, but not to the extent seen in some figures. This overexposure might lead to some loss of so ssue detail but is not as detrimental as in other overexposed figures. The la tude of 1.6 remains a limita on, as the narrow range of exposure tolerance means that slight varia ons in exposure could nega vely impact image quality. Figure 4: 80kVp, S=52, L=1.6 Figure 4 is taken at 80kVp where the contrast improves slightly compared to the upcoming images, as the lower energy X-rays are more differen ally absorbed by various ssue types. This provides be er visualisa on of so ssues, through the overall penetra on of dense ssues like bone is s ll adequate. The S-value of 52 suggests moderate overexposure, but less so than the upcoming figures. As a result, the image may appear clearer with improved contrast between so ssue and bone. However, the la tude of 1.6 exposure con nues to present challenges in managing exposure, meaning this image could s ll suffer from limited diagnos c value if further exposure adjustments were made. Figure 5: 90kVp, S=38, L=1.6 Figure 3 Figure 4 With a slightly higher kVp of 90, this figure provides good penetra on for bone visualisa on, but with slightly worse contrast than previous figures. However, the reduc on in kVp from 110, as seen in figure 7, to 90 does not significantly improve so ssue contrast, as the kVp remains rela vely high. The S-value of 38 suggests even greater overexposure than previous images, further compromising the visibility of so ssue and causing a loss of detail. The la tude remains at 1.6, indica ng the image receptor’s limited capacity to handle exposure varia ons. This is a cri cal limita on, as any further increase in exposure could severely degrade the image quality, especially in terms of so ssue visualisa on. Figure 6: 100kVp, S=30, L=1.6: In figure 6, the kVp of 100 ensures sufficient penetra on of the bone imaging, but as seen in the next figure (7), the contrast is reduced due to the high energy of the x-ray beam. The S-value of 30 represents a high overexposure, which risks obscuring important diagnos c informa on and details, par cularly in areas with lower density ssues. Once again, the la tude is set at 1.6, underscoring the limited dynamic range for exposure even though it is s ll within the op mal range. Given the combina on of high kVp and low S-value, the resultant image is overexposed, limi ng the diagnos c u lity of the image. Figure 7: 110kvP, S=45, L=1.6 Figure 6 Figure 5 In figure 7, the high kVp of 110 leads to extremely high penetra on of dense ssues, such as bones. High kVp reduces image contrast, making it harder to dis nguish between different ssue types, especially so ssues. This is due to the high energy X-rays penetra ng the ssues more uniformly, reducing the differences in a enua on that produce contrast. However, high kVp is effec ve for imaging dense structures, providing a clear view of bones. The S-value of 45 indicates overexposure, which can cause the image to appear washed out, par cularly in areas with lower ssue density, so ssue. Overexposure reduces the ability to visualise fine details in so er ssues, which is a drawback for diagnos c purposes making it very difficult to iden